DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on August 8th 2024, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 10, 13 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/224296 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 from the reference application anticipates pending claims 1 and 20. Pending claim 13 corresponds to these claims as well. Claims 8-12 of the reference application are directed to the radiotag and anticipate or render obvious pending claim 10. Claim 7 of the reference application corresponds to pending claims 2-3.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijayasankar et al. US 2025/0125664 A1, hereinafter “Vijay” in view of Kindo US 2025/0007977 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Vijay discloses a radiotag (electronic device – abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 3-5) comprising:
a wireless communication interface; at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium that includes: a primary firmware area; and a secondary firmware area (wireless interface, processor, and multiple memory/firmware areas – see Fig. 1, paragraphs 7, 49-50);
wherein the primary firmware area has stored therein computer-executable instructions comprising: two or more pruned service stacks (multiple protocol stacks – paragraphs 49 and 53);
and an application service (execute applications and software – paragraph 49);
wherein each pruned service stack of the two or more pruned service stacks includes a subset of instructions of a service stack for communicating with a corresponding communication platform (this is the definition of service/protocol stack – it is software (i.e. “a subset of instructions” that enables communication for a specific protocol/platform – see paragraphs 49 and 53).
and wherein the application service accesses functionality of the two or more pruned service stacks via the [interface/service] (execute software that interfaces with the RF to transmit data/packets based on the particular protocol stacks – see paragraph 50; also see paragraph 53 which teaches the “DMM” provides access to radio resources for the protocol stacks).
Vijay does not explicitly disclose a common interface or a middleware service that connects the common interface to the service stacks but this is likely inherent as Vijay discloses the CPU is able to read/write and execute data stored in memory and send commands to different cores such as the radio interface (see paragraphs 50-55 and Fig. 1). Specifically, Vijay teaches a “DMM” coordinates actions between the CPU executing the software and the radio resources (paragraph 53). Thus, Vijay teaches or suggests a common interface (e.g. bus) and instructions/code (e.g. middleware) that enable the protocol stacks to function. In the event a common interface and middleware are not inherent, these elements are explicitly taught by Kindo as a wireless communication device with middleware and controller interface for communicating over radio via a Bluetooth stack (paragraph 51, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vijay with the common interface and middleware taught by Kindo for the purpose of communicating. A common interface and middleware are both well-known in the art. Thus, this is merely the combination of a well-known element according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 11, Vijay does not explicitly disclose the primary firmware and the secondary firmware have matching sizes. But it teaches a plurality of storage areas as discussed above (paragraph 52, Fig. 1). It is well known in the art to divide memory into areas having equal sizes. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on the teachings of Vijay.
Regarding claim 12, Vijay discloses wherein the two or more service stacks include a first pruned service stack for communicating with a first communication platform, a second pruned service stack for communicating with a second communication platform, and a third pruned service stack for communicating with a radiotag management computing device (multiple protocol stacks for communicating – see paragraph 49 which discloses at least five different stacks).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 13-20 appear to be allowable upon overcoming the double patenting rejection.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1, 13 and 20 recite several well-known concepts (see pertinent art) but when considered as a whole, they also recite a specific combination of features. When these features are considered as an ordered combination, the claims distinguish over the prior art. Claims 2-9 and 14-19 are allowable based on their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu US 2022/0060872 A1 discloses a Bluetooth device with processor, memory and radio interface (abstract, Fig. 1, paragraph 67).
Hatambeiki et al. US 2021/0368562 A1 discloses a device with processor, memory and interface (paragraph 48, Fig. 5) that supports multiple protocol stacks in order to communicate with different communication platforms (paragraph 79).
Best US 2019/0182649 A1 discloses an IoT device (abstract) that can selectively change its protocol stack to communicate with different communication devices (paragraphs 166, 178).
Bajic et al. US 2012/0155349 A1 discloses an RFID device with processor, memory, and interface (abstract, Fig. 1, paragraph 44) and teaches the protocol stack layers (paragraph 53, Fig. 2A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights